> Nothing shows the power of capitalist monopolies more than the lengths unions go to fight them. Oh wait

You say this as if it's some clever proof, but I'd say it's literally correct. It's why all sorts of people in all sorts of countries fight capitalist monopolies.

And, I should add, for all sorts of reasons. I believe strongly in the power of markets. They're incredible optimization machines. Which is why I'm also for strong markets. Monopolies are just as anti-market as the most ardent communist. People who believe in free enterprise should all fight monopolistic behavior.

Yeah I was saying that the original claim was self-contradictory since if you use "resistance exists" as a proof that something is good, then you've already admitted that anti-unionism is good too, since it's also strongly resisted.

Rewriting a comment after somebody has already responded is very rude. Now your comment is differently wrong, but I'm sure not going to bother with it or you given that you may just keep rewriting the thing I'm responding to.

Apologies, I was adding detail and don't realize you were already responding. I don't think we disagree though - do you? I still agree with what you responded to, I just removed that phrase because it seemed inflammatory

GP said it was proof of power. Power can be used for good or ill.

But the problem is that the labor "market" has many weird inefficiencies not found in the usual "buyer X selling widget Y" model of the free market. For example, the poorer you are the less elasticity you have in your labor "product"; by the mere necessity of paying rent and buying food you have to accept virtually any offer that comes your way. On the other hand, employers often negotiate from a position of substantial strength because of their deep capital reserves. I'd consider this a market distortion, and a harmful one at that. Labor laws and unions provide counterbalance which is important to ensuring a healthy labor market.

I agree that this is a theoretical weakness. In the US currently, though, it seems that this rarely ever comes into play. i.e. in SF the city gives anyone money to survive for food/etc. w/out working. I think truly not having options is very rare in the 1st world in general. If you think this is an active issue here, I'm open to looking further into it.

So I agree that while exploitation by monopolies is possible (in the extreme, just via slavery or indentured servitude/debt peonage), I think we have mostly taken care of it via social support mechanisms. If that's true, then further intervention in markets doesn't seem necessary. Of course, I still would support health inspections, etc to root out local corruption since it's too hard for the public to monitor that themselves. In a sense, the fact that voters approve the FDA and other inspection-style measures is just them commissioning someone to do that for them, and that's okay.

But when it comes to California coming in and saying that Uber drivers shouldn't be allowed to voluntarily work as contractors, it seems really strange. Drivers like it and the company likes it, so what's the problem? Yet the state still wants to intervene in the relationship.

I'm not sure where things stand now, but just prior to the pandemic I remember reading that the labor market was historically inelastic for workers of all stripes. Between non-computes, implicit collusion, and the emergence of gig work people who sold their labor for wages were the least able to change jobs or negotiate for better wages since like the 70s.

Your characterization of SF's social safety net seems (charitably) hyperbolic, I think you need to diversify your news diet.

> I think we have mostly taken care of it via social support mechanisms

As with labor elasticity, these are again at historical lows. Basically since Reagan we have gutted our social safety net and replaced it with tax cuts for the employers who then take their extra capital overseas.

> Drivers like it and the company likes it, so what's the problem?

I don't know who you're talking to, but drivers definitely don't "like it". They need it, yes, but the ones I've spoken to seem to have major problems with Uber who has stonewalled them for years.

Overall it sounds like we are starting from very different assumptions about the state of play in the labor market right now, not sure if we're going to bridge this in a comment thread debate. Have a good one!

The free market has options and then showing something that was designed in SF precisely because the free market fails people is not a very good argument for the free market.

A capitalist monopoly is a conspiracy in favor of the firm. Unions are a conspiracy in favor of the people.

Exactly. And somehow people fail to see a difference between human needs and the needs of a profit seeking machine.

Without unions individuals basically NEVER have bargaining power. And of course it's not like you can choose to not work. At least not for the crushing majority of people, I guess.

Unions are often monopolies too - monopolies on labour. Monopolies often lead to inefficiency in the market and an inefficient market is bad for everyone.

Unions are just another corporation. They balance the corporation that owns the assets. Nobody is locking anything down, they're just signing contracts. This is healthy for competition, not stifling.

Not quite “just another corporation”, they are often monopolies on labour.

Frankly, power imbalances in either direction isn’t good - because we all know it will be abused.

The main way people compete, outside of vampire-FAANG, is by a willingness to work for lower wages, and then the only winners are the employers

There is some justice in that the young will get old and experience the same system they helped perpetuate. The young should be willing to hire the old, or else they themselves will become old and find that nobody is willing to hire them.